Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Progress Reports

The next item on our agenda is progress reports from reporters. The first to speak will be Michael Matheson.

I do not have anything specific to report.

Could somebody clarify for me what we decided last week about the Stirling disability in housing conference?

Is that something for the convener or for Martin Verity to come back on?

The committee agreed that it will meet here on 14 December.

So nobody is going to the conference in the morning?

I do not think that we agreed that nobody is going in the morning; we were going to try to find somebody who can go. I cannot go because our meeting cannot go ahead unless I am here. The issue is still unresolved. The organisers of the conference would still like someone from this committee to attend.

I am going in the afternoon. I do not know whether Michael wants to go in the morning. I assume that we both have the same problem: we do not know what is on the agenda for the morning of 14 December, but in general we do not want to miss a committee meeting.

My primary concern was missing a committee meeting, especially given that it is the last committee meeting before the recess.

I have the same concern.

At our meeting on 14 December we may take more evidence on the improvement in Scottish education bill. However, I think that the organisers of the Stirling conference would like one of us to attend in the morning. I will ask Martin Verity to speak to members of the committee about that after this meeting. If anyone has an interest in disability issues and is prepared to go along, they will have to miss a committee meeting. That is just unfortunate. If we had a deputy convener, I would go and miss the committee meeting, but unfortunately we do not. Martin will get in touch with members by phone over the next day or so, so that we can get back to the organisers. I do not think that we can do any more than that.

I want to offer my apologies for not being able to attend our previous meeting. My reporter's group has not met since then, but I have had a response from Professor McLean to my letter asking about the document that she is producing on women offenders.

The document is on the verge of being published but, because it was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, I am not sure at what stage we will have access to it. However, Professor McLean indicated that she is more than happy to meet the group to discuss the issue of women offenders.

We are still waiting for information about "Towards a Just Conclusion: Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in Scottish civil and criminal cases", which the group wanted to examine in relation to women. As for the visit to Cornton Vale prison, I have asked Sylvia Jackson, who is organising the visit, to report to the small group, which is probably the most useful way of finding out the important issues concerning the treatment of women in prison. Perhaps the full committee will want to examine the matter or organise its own visit. I am concerned about simply going for a look at the prison, as if the women there were in a goldfish bowl.

Having spoken informally to women and women's organisations, I have found that the issue of women in the justice system opens up huge areas of debate such as provocation. Women's aid organisations have a lot of information and concerns that we would want to tap into. Perhaps the group should meet very briefly at the end of this meeting to plan our next moves.

We agreed that we would invite Zero Tolerance, SAY Women and the Scottish human rights group to speak to the full committee. Perhaps this topic came up at the previous committee meeting and I missed it, but I would like to know how those invitations are going. As I am concerned that some of the group's discussions are not in the public domain, it is important that those presentations are held in public to bring the issues to the wider world.

As there have been many requests from organisations to appear before the committee, Martin Verity will put together a list of those organisations and a timetable so that their appearances fit in with our discussions on bills and so on. That paper will be available for the next committee meeting. Does any member have any questions or comments for Johann?

On a general point, when Martin produces that paper, will it be up to the committee to prioritise who comes before it?

The paper will have a list of which organisations have been asked, but it will be up to us to decide the priorities.

We will now move on to Michael McMahon's report on race issues.

I am circulating the minutes of this morning's meeting. We were asked by the committee to discuss as the meeting's first two items the Act of Settlement and the asylum and immigration bill. I have spoken to Martin Verity, because part of our problem with the act was working out what the committee could do with our report, which is very much still in progress. There was consensus on some areas, but not on others, which was a problem that we had to resolve.

What came out of our discussion was the idea that the committee could ask the Parliament for a debate on the issue. As the minutes show, although the group agreed that a debate would be useful, it could not agree on the form of such a debate. However, the group was not totally au fait with procedures and could not decide on how the committee should approach the issue.

At the previous meeting, Shona Robison asked whether the asylum and immigration bill could be put on the agenda. All members of the group agreed that we should invite the Scottish Refugee Council to speak to the committee about the bill. We suggest that we invite that organisation to the same meeting as that attended by the Scottish Human Rights Centre—we could take evidence from both groups. We would like that issue to be given a high priority.

We then looked at how we, as a small group, could have an input into the work of the committee; there was total agreement that we should be proactive. Rather than waiting for issues to arise, we should take a step ahead. We agreed that we should take evidence on housing and that we should invite Positive Action in Housing to the committee, as it has a strong agenda on equal opportunities for black and ethnic minority communities—again, we wanted to place that issue firmly on the committee's agenda.

We considered the briefings that we received during the recess, which were to guide the committee's work. Number crunching was one issue that arose—it was reflected in what the EIS representatives said earlier. Several organisations asked us to examine data collection. Tommy Sheridan, who cannot be here today, specifically wanted me to say that we must find a mechanism of obtaining statistics on employment, levels of pay and so on for those who are affected by discrimination. The group felt that that issue must be put on the agenda. Perhaps the equality unit can help us with this, but we must ensure that there is adequate data collection, to allow us to make good decisions that are based on facts.

Under other business, we noted that there are a number of organisations that want to meet the committee and which we would like to meet, although there is no timetable for such meetings. When we considered the areas that are being examined by the sub-groups, it seemed to us that we bring many of those areas back to the committee, yet we still meet only once a fortnight. The view of the group was that we would have to reconsider that approach. We said that we would revisit the issue, but there is a feeling that the committee might need to meet weekly in the new year, so that it can meet the number of groups that want to come. At the moment, fortnightly meetings do not allow us to deal with the education bill—and other legislation that is being introduced. At the same time, we do not have enough time to consider the general issues.

I was asked to raise those matters, so that the committee could consider them.

Are there any questions or comments for Michael?

I know that work on housing is being undertaken by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee—it is producing a report on housing. Has that committee sought representations from Positive Action in Housing? I expect that it will have done so. Would it be useful to have that evidence as a first base, so that we are not simply bringing people before the committee who have already made presentations to other committees? I agree absolutely that we should consider the issues that Michael raised, but if much of the information gathering has already been done, we could start from a different base.

I am concerned about having weekly committee meetings, as there should be space for the sub-groups to work effectively—they were to meet in the week in which the full committee was not meeting. I understand Michael's point, but the benefit was that the fortnightly arrangement allowed the sub-groups to consider issues in some depth—it is a balancing act.

We can take briefings from different organisations in areas in which people are interested, but they might not necessarily fit into our work programme or inform the committee's work. We have agreed to consider specific matters, such as the education bill and any other legislation.

I am not sure whether there has been any advice on the Act of Settlement. My understanding is that the committees have 12 half days a year of parliamentary time to use for committee business. I am not sure what the procedure for that is.

The Parliamentary Bureau draws up the programme of business.

Yes, but this committee can put in a request to use some of the committee time in Parliament for whatever it wants. I am not necessarily saying that we would want to use it for that.

We had not remembered that. It is an obvious third option.

The committee would have to decide whether it wanted to use its one half day a year to discuss that issue.

The committee can decide what it wants to advise the Parliament to do or, with the committee's agreement, the convener can put in a request to the bureau. If the committee intended to produce a report on the issue, that could include a recommendation, but there is a time factor.

I am not sure that the convener can simply put in a request to the bureau. There are 12 half days a year for committee business. Committees can request some of that time to initiate a debate or to bring forward a proposal.

Mike Russell has lodged a motion to which the majority of MSPs have given their support. The issue is a matter for Westminster. What would the committee hope to achieve by debating the issue for a half day?

If there is to be a debate about how we want to use our half day, it must be honest, open and full. We do not want to be driven by the fact that this issue has generated much publicity and interest. We might conclude that we want to use our half day to debate the Act of Settlement, but we should not decide that now. What about the work that has come out of the sub-groups, which has not been done elsewhere?

I have an open mind on the matter, but we need clarification on what our entitlement is—is it a half day or is it more? Is there a bidding system? At some stage, although not necessarily today, the committee must decide the priority. What is the first thing that the Equal Opportunities Committee of the new Scottish Parliament wants to bring to the chamber for debate? That will be a hard decision. There are many competing interests. If we make a move on the Act of Settlement now, we will not take the other issues that concern us into the round.

Essentially I agree, but at the moment we are not even in a position to discuss the Act of Settlement. I have given members of the race reporter's group a draft statement and a date for the next meeting, but we already have a full agenda. If we need to discuss the Act of Settlement before the full committee next meets on 14 December, I can call another meeting of the reporter's group quite quickly. However, there was general agreement on the statement. It has to be typed up and some items need to be added, including an extra paragraph. We cannot take a decision on it today; we must wait for the statement to be agreed by the committee.

We could make a report, but what would we do with it after that? That is what we need to find out. We cannot do anything until the matter has come before the committee and an agreement has been reached on how to proceed.

I agree entirely with Johann Lamont. Once we have decided what we want to say on the Act of Settlement, we must decide which issue we will use to secure time for a debate in the chamber. It may be this one, or there may be more pressing issues, but we cannot decide today either way, and there is still a long way to go in debating the Act of Settlement.

That is right. Nobody expects us to decide our priorities today. Johann usefully suggested that we need clarification as to what opportunities are available. It might be that there are opportunities beyond the 12 half days that are officially allocated; I would like to know whether there are other mechanisms for committees to raise with the bureau issues of concern that might arise during a parliamentary year.

At any time, conveners can raise with the bureau issues that arise. There are guidelines for debates in the chamber—they are reasonably strict because of the restricted time that is available. The committees may have 12 half days, but that does not mean that every committee has a half day. Opposition groups have time allocated, as does the Executive, and that time is already limited. I could raise anything at all with the bureau if the committee wants me to, but I cannot necessarily put in a bid for time in the chamber. However, I will seek clarification on the procedures.

I shall clarify that and notify members as soon as possible. I could also included it in our future work programme.

That would be useful.

At the reporter's group it was broadly agreed that, given the cross-party support for the motion, there should be a debate to express Parliament's views and draw a line under the issue, rather than the motion just falling off the business bulletin. Our discussions focused on whether it should be a members' business debate, a non-Executive debate or an Executive debate.

Johann Lamont asked about Positive Action in Housing. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee will be inviting that organisation to give evidence, probably in late January or early February.

That raises a general question about the role of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We are covering all the other committee areas as well, so I do not think that the fact that that organisation is going to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee should prevent it from also coming here. We have a particular interest in promoting its concerns, although I am not saying that members of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee do not.

I do not think that anybody was suggesting that that was the case. We have already indicated to Positive Action in Housing that it could come here.

I thought that we might have a joint meeting with the other committee. I am concerned that witnesses might come to separate committees as if the other committees were not aware of which witnesses were being interviewed. We could have a joint meeting, or we could meet representatives from Positive Action in Housing after they had been to the first meeting, so that we could build on the first round of evidence.

That is up to the committee. The difficulty with joint meetings is one of timetabling.

I should like to raise one other issue. It is another request for people to come to the committee. Last week, we had an opportunity to go to the international conference centre to meet the Commission for Racial Equality. Representatives from the Fife and Central Scotland racial equality councils were there. They would like to come to our committee. They do not mean just their own groups, which represent specific areas of Scotland—they want all the racial equality councils to be involved.

I do not know whether the best way to do that would be to get all the councils along at one time, or whether the race reporter's group should invite a delegation and bring information to the committee. I am open to suggestions on how to handle it.

Do you think that it would be best if representatives of those organisations came to the full committee?

To give evidence or as visitors?

To give evidence.

There are quite a lot of racial equality councils.

I know—that is the difficulty. How do we decide which councils should come, or should we arrange a delegation that represents them all?

There are six racial equality councils, so it is not inconceivable that we could ask each to send a representative. When we take evidence, we might find that different issues are raised that relate to local matters, for example, local authority funding and problems in specific areas.

Will I contact the racial equality councils to see what they think?

Yes. They would be welcome to come to the committee.

Do the racial equality councils want to give evidence on a specific issue that we are dealing with? We have had briefings from other groups. Could the full committee get an informal briefing from them?

I will speak to them again, to find out what they think is the best way of dealing with the matter.

We said that we would consider meeting weekly again when we were coming to the end of the committee cycle. I am reluctant to meet weekly, because I do not think that that would give enough time for individual groups. If we focus more on the work that we want to do with an end goal, such as feeding into the legislative programme or producing reports, we can continue to meet every other week. It is up to the committee how often we meet.

Perhaps that matter should be considered at the next meeting. We will know what the timetable looks like by then and will be able to make a decision.

The turnround for a weekly committee meeting means that there is barely time for anybody to get anything done.

Is the next meeting the last one in the cycle?

Yes. It is on 14 December.

Nora Radcliffe has gone, so we will move on to the next item on the agenda.